Kristi Henry

Eng 516

Final Exam

Question One:

Computers are changing education whether or not we want them to. Computers are also changing our language. In a relatively short period of time, computers and the Internet are having a tremendous impact on how we read and write. Gunther Kress in “’English’ at the Crossroads” makes the point that more and more, images and words are being used together to convey the same ideas that were conveyed with only words a few years ago. Computers and the Internet make that possible and also standard. Students need to be familiar with the kind of writing that requires students to incorporate information from surrounding images as well. James Sosnoski’s article, “Hyper-readers and their Reading Engines,” hints that hyper textual reading, or reading on-screen, will also become standard in the next few years. While most of us still prefer to read from paper, our students are doing more and more of their work and play on-screen, and will prefer to do their schoolwork there. Perhaps most striking is the changes in language and the emergence of a new etiquette when it comes to electronic mail. E-mail has become a major source of communication over the past few years. Gail Hawisher and Charles Moran make a case for the changes that e-mail has brought to writing in their article, “The rhetorics and languages of electronic mail.” They mention the “new forms of language” (98) that have emerged from e-mail, Internet Relay Chat, and other places online.

Computers have changed not only how we read and write, but what form that writing takes. In “Saving a Place for Essayistic Literacy,” Doug Hesse makes a case for keeping a traditional notion of the essay, which is a good sign that the essay is changing. Myka Vielstimming, or Michael Spooner and Kathleen Blake Yancey’s piece, “Petals on a Wet Black Bough,” shows, through dialogue, that the form of writing often seen online will soon merge into traditional writing, and is nothing like the traditional, Hessian, essay. The changes in writing online will transfer into the classroom. Nicholas Burbules mentions how something as simple as a link on a website can actually say so much more about the website by the connections and juxtapositions that they make.

It is only natural that computers would be integrated into the classroom because it is a natural progression. Dennis Baron would argue that our use of the computer will change over time, but like the pencil, computers might one day be so integrated into the classroom that we won’t even notice them. Kevin Robins would argue that as much more of life is conducted in cyberspace, perhaps even in virtual reality, students will need to be comfortable in that environment and with the language that will surround them there.

Lastly, and most importantly, computers will change the way that we think. Cynthia Selfe was adamant on this point in her essay, “Technology and Literacy: A Story about the Perils of Not Paying Attention.” She said that we need to pay attention to the changes that computers bring, and we need to make sure that we think about the impact of computers on our lives. Sarah Sloane illustrates this in her study of a student nicknamed “J.” J is an atypical student who learns to use computers and he changes his mind about the uses of computers. In “Writing Is a Technology that Restructures Thought,” Walter Ong stated that writing, no matter what technology we use to create it, will always change the way that we think.

Lester Faigley makes a case for computers having the ability to open up the world to students. He relates stories about students from remote places conversing with other students thousands of miles away. He also mentions that the reaches of computers may not always be positive. Microsoft, for example wanted to stamp students as Microsoft users from a young age. “Give me a child of seven and I will give you a Microsoft user for life” (130). While Microsoft’s philanthropic aims can be applauded, its underhanded business practices shouldn’t interfere in the classroom.

Susan Romano would also agree that the computer is not always a positive influence. According to her article, entitled “On Becoming a Woman: Pedagogies of the Self,” women often feel attacked in online conversations. “For when gender became topical in sessions conducted under ‘real’ social identities, the subjects placed under severe interrogation usually were women” (255). Gail Hawisher and Patricia Sullivan also make the point that women should be in control of their own images and information online, or else they risk being objectified or mistreated. Selfe argued that advertising, often online, helps perpetrate racial, gender, and socioeconomic stereotypes, which is also a negative use of computers and the Internet. We need to be aware of these possible negative outcomes as we use computers in our classes so that each student can have the best possible experience with technology.

Joe Amato’s poignant essay entitled, “Family Values: Literacy, Technology, and Uncle Sam,” shows us that using computers is only one step towards lasting knowledge. Computers can change a lot about education, the way that we thing, and the way that we live. But as Selfe mentioned, all of this change will run over us unless we pay attention.

Question Two: Student-centered Pedagogy

‘Student-centered pedagogy’ encompasses the ideas that students can be in charge of their learning and to some degree, the structure of the class itself. Computer usage allows for a dramatic shift in the way teachers and students interact, especially during discussion. Synchronous and asynchronous communication both allow for the teacher to stand back and let students take control through their interactions with each other.

John Barber wrote an article on this topic in his essay entitled, “Effective Teaching in the Online Classroom: Thoughts and Recommendations.” He stated that online discussion groups as part of a class “foster a much needed decentering of authority and that they give students a tremendous amount of power with which to direct their own creating and sharing of knowledge” (253). This works especially well with older students who can set their own goals for learning. Teachers often become ‘co-learners’ (254) in online classroom settings, though they are often still needed as the authority figure to help some students figure out the technology, and break up arguments.

Robert Yagelski looked at asynchronous discussions and their effect on student teachers in his article, “Asynchronous Networks for Critical Reflection: Using CMC in the Preparation of Secondary Writing Teachers.” He mentions that CMC not only allows for a less “teacher-centered discourse” (345), but it also allows for a more egalitarian space for the students. Others (Romano and Cooper) have mentioned that students who do not normally participate in discussions face-to-face often take the opportunity to participate online. Yagelski uses his English 391 class as a model. He pointed out that many of his students were having discussions on threads that were unrelated to course material, but very much related to their course of study. This is an excellent example of a student-centered pedagogy. They needed more than what the class offered, so they created it.

Question Three: Larry Cuban

In “Making Sense of Unexpected Outcomes,” Larry Cuban states that “less than 5 percent of teachers integrated computer technology into their regular curricular and instructional routines” (133). This was a surprising finding to him because many of the teachers he studied used computers regularly at home or for school-related tasks. He was hoping to find that since the people he studied, teachers, used computers frequently in their daily lives, they would be more likely to use them in their classrooms. This was not the case.

First, he looked at the history of new technologies and their adaptation into the classroom. He examined film, radio, and instructional television. These technologies were always introduced as ‘revolutionary,’ and were supposed to change teaching (137). The logistics of using these new technologies and making them available exactly when they were needed was problematic for many teachers, so they didn’t use the new, ‘revolutionary’ technology very often (138). The pattern continues with computers.

For more answers and patterns, Cuban looked at the adaptation of technology in other fields, namely engineering and medicine. In each profession, he found that adoption of new technologies typically followed an S curve (140). The same is often true in education.

Cuban offered three other theories to explain the lack of ‘revolutionary’ change in education since the dawn of the computer age. The ‘slow revolution’ theory states that right now, teachers have a limited number of machines to use and limited time to use them, or limited time to learn to use them. Eventually, as teachers and students learn more about the uses and abilities of computers, they will begin to used more, and more effectively (154). Historically, change is mandated from the top down, so while the administrations and school boards decide that using computers in classrooms is a good idea, it takes the teachers, the ones using the computers, a bit more time to catch on and implement (164). Teachers also consider many aspects of a student’s education, and technology may only be a small part of the whole package. Teachers make choices based on what they need to cover, and those choices aren’t always conducive to integrating technology (167).

One author who would agree with Cuban is Dennis Baron. He tells of the slow adaptation of pencil and pen varieties. He states that “the computer is simply the latest step in a long line of writing technologies” (17). He gives a detailed account of the struggles to adapt when newer pencil designs and telephones were introduced. There is always a period of time where people need to adjust.

Another author who would agree with Cuban is Cynthia Selfe. In her essay entitled, “Technology and Literacy: A Story about the Perils of Not Paying Attention,” she says that we, as teachers, need to not only teach our students to use computers, but we need to also teach them to think about computers (414). She mentions that in education, our focus is generally more on people than machines (414), not necessarily the impact of the machines. We might have the technology in the room, as Cuban states, but we are not using it as it was intended or to its fullest extent.